I don't think anyone ever considered Joel Skinner a can't-miss prospect. He was a 37th-round draft pick from the Pirates system and never hit consistently in the minors before never hitting consistently in the majors, although he was regarded as a pretty good defensive catcher. Ron Karkovice, who came up late in the 1986 season, was the first-round pick who seemed to be developing into a solid hitter.

I recall reading that Harrelson said the idea of moving Fisk to left was to extend his career, not to find a place for Skinner to play every day or that the Sox needed to make room for Karkovice. In fact, Skinner was traded midway through the 1986 season. I don't think the White Sox really looked at catchers as being key to the offense between Fisk and Pierzynski.

I recall reading that Harrelson said the idea of moving Fisk to left was to extend his career...

I don't remember that quote (I was 9 in early 1986), but if true I completely understand that thinking (even if I don't necessarily agree with it). Fisk led the league in homers in 85 while still hitting for a decent average. Of course it made sense from that perspective to find a way to keep his bat in the lineup, to reduce his risk of injury, and to extend his career.

__________________The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.

I read an article that stated that Hawk wasn't as bad as a lot of people want to believe. He did get Calderon for next to nothing and he turned into Raines. He got Bonilla as a rule 5, was ripped for trading him for DeLeon, but DeLeon turned into One Dog,and if Bonilla stayed, the Sox might have won a few more games over the years, not enough to win, but enough to keep them from being able to draft guys like McDowell and Thomas. So why it is fashionable on this site to criticize Hawk for everything he does, his "disasterous" stint as a GM, really wasn't so bad. He did inherit a disaster. Britt Burns and Tom Seaver were done, and the minor league system was worse than it is now.

What's the big deal here, baseball managers get fired. Am I supposed to believe that Tony LaRussa would have stayed with the Sox every year since 1981?...yea, wouldn't happen.

When I think of Tony LaRussa, I think of a great manager and steroids. Why managers don't get tainted the way Mark McGuire has, I don't know why.

As much as I hate how offensive baseball records fell to the ilk of Bonds, Sosa, McGuire, Palmeiro, Clemens, etc. during the steroid era, the blame goes beyond the players in question to managers, coaches, trainers, owners, etc. Everyone knew what was going on, however fan butts were in the seats and the popularity of the game was high. They just turned a blind eye.

Although good players became great players by using PEDs, I believe there were a lot more below average players who became average players using PEDs. Players who may have only lasted 2-3 years may have extended their careers to 5-6 years. Players we have already forgotten.

I read an article that stated that Hawk wasn't as bad as a lot of people want to believe. He did get Calderon for next to nothing and he turned into Raines. He got Bonilla as a rule 5, was ripped for trading him for DeLeon, but DeLeon turned into One Dog,and if Bonilla stayed, the Sox might have won a few more games over the years, not enough to win, but enough to keep them from being able to draft guys like McDowell and Thomas. So why it is fashionable on this site to criticize Hawk for everything he does, his "disasterous" stint as a GM, really wasn't so bad. He did inherit a disaster. Britt Burns and Tom Seaver were done, and the minor league system was worse than it is now.

I read something about this on another message board and Harrelson actually made some good moves. I was kinda surprised by it because I always thought he ruined the Sox.

I read something about this on another message board and Harrelson actually made some good moves. I was kinda surprised by it because I always thought he ruined the Sox.

They obviously lost a lot of games, and Hawk made some mistakes. But their 2 best starters from the year before were toast. Burns never pitched again, and Seaver wanted to be on the East Coast. Fisk put up an Ozzie Guillen-like .600 OPS. They were doomed. And one of the big reasons Hawk got the job was because of the lack of talent in the farm system.

I forget who wrote the article I read, but it was interesting. Had Hawk been just slightly more successful, had he kept Bobby Bonilla who he picked up for nothing anyway, Frank Thomas probably would never have been a White Sox. Hawk's one year reign as the Sox GM was the beginning of their resurgence starting in 1990.

I read an article that stated that Hawk wasn't as bad as a lot of people want to believe. He did get Calderon for next to nothing and he turned into Raines. He got Bonilla as a rule 5, was ripped for trading him for DeLeon, but DeLeon turned into One Dog,and if Bonilla stayed, the Sox might have won a few more games over the years, not enough to win, but enough to keep them from being able to draft guys like McDowell and Thomas. So why it is fashionable on this site to criticize Hawk for everything he does, his "disasterous" stint as a GM, really wasn't so bad. He did inherit a disaster. Britt Burns and Tom Seaver were done, and the minor league system was worse than it is now.

I get what you are saying, but I hate this line of thinking. It isn't just your statement, but I don't agree with an ends justify the means approach for bad moves. Its the same as people who praise say, John Paxson, for messing up trading Aldridge for Tyrus Thomas since we might not have won the lottery to get Rose.

If Hawk was planning on making bad moves to get Black Jack and Big Frank, awesome. Otherwise, they were just bad moves.

I get what you are saying, but I hate this line of thinking. It isn't just your statement, but I don't agree with an ends justify the means approach for bad moves. Its the same as people who praise say, John Paxson, for messing up trading Aldridge for Tyrus Thomas since we might not have won the lottery to get Rose.

If Hawk was planning on making bad moves to get Black Jack and Big Frank, awesome. Otherwise, they were just bad moves.

But the moves really weren't that bad. Calderon was a nice acquistion for Scott Bradley. Then Calderon became Tim Raines. They acquired Bonilla for nothing, then traded him for DeLeon, who they traded several years later for One Dog and Rickey Horton.

The moves he gets busted about where Fisk to LF, which lasted 31 games. Firing LaRussa and trading Bonilla who he picked up for nothing which is never pointed out as a positive.

Granted it didn't work out, but there were a few positives that occured during his reign and after. The guy he hired to take LaRussa's place managed in a World Series.

And another thing that people miss when dreaming of Tony LaRussa leading the Sox to multiple championships..........he used to get booed worse than Jerry Manuel. There weren't a lot of White Sox fans up in arms when he was let go.

And another thing that people miss when dreaming of Tony LaRussa leading the Sox to multiple championships..........he used to get booed worse than Jerry Manuel. There weren't a lot of White Sox fans up in arms when he was let go.